Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
, harry reid, and said this is the solution. >> all right. meanwhile, senator lindsay graham is suggesting one potential -- >> i'm sorry, could i interrupt? i had a munchkin in my mouth. >> no, you can't have those. you're supposed to have your greek yogurt. >> i'm trying to make a point with a visual aid. this is like defense spending. done. gone. >> before the day has even started, you've just -- give those to me. >> i'm not homer simpson. what do you make of what woodward said? >> the president's in charge. he's got to figure out a way to stop the sequester. i think the symbolism of the last couple weeks haven't been great. he's not really out there leading a new path towards figuring out how to avoid something he says is a bad idea and promised as a candidate wouldn't happen. >> okay. john, joe's mouth is full. what do you think? >> i'm hap think the sequester be a bad thing. >> everyone says that. who's going to take the blame? who should? >> if it ends up going into effect, i think they're all going to take a lot of blame and they should. it's fair enough to say, if bob's reporting i
of questions about whether democratic legislators up to and including harry reid would support what the president wants to do when t comes to gun control. >> that is a good question, jon. in the political calculus that is pretty simple. you have democrats that could be embarrassed if forced take a vote on guns. like assault weapons ban, et cetera. those are in conservative states or in the house in conservative districts may have been carried by mitt romney and they're holding on by a thread. we're talking about whether or not senate majority leader harry reid is willing to put those democrats at risk and also then put at risk control of the senate because republicans have fewer people who were running, who will be running in 14 and fewer people who are at risk. though again, the dynamic is very difficult for the democrats and here's a vote that would expose them to great political costs. jon: let's take, let's take another listen at one of the things the president said last night. >> and i know you want these job-creating projects in your district. i've seen all those ribbon cuttin
whether i vote for that budget or vote against that budget. the fact that harry reid's senate and that harry reid himself has gotten in the way of a former really good budget chairman not passing a budget is shameful. and now you have the president saying, well, i'm against the sequester cuts. well, okay, great. what are you going to replace them with? i don't know. no specifics. they never give specifics. >> so i don't know, because i was working on my column and talking to a couple different people in the white house yesterday. and they were talking about the president's statement yesterday. and he is saying to republicans, come meet with him. anytime. they can come right now. and he will work on a deal. it can be a smaller deal if we can't make the sequestration deadline. and it can involve spending and revenue and a mix, and that they haven't taken their toys and walked away. they've offered $400 billion in health care cuts and other things. the republicans have other ideas, come on over to the white house. put them on the table. let's make a small deal. if we can't get to
republicans passed so many things that just never see the light of day. and harry reid's senate. but the way things used to work, you used to pass things in the house, and then the senate would pass things. and then when harold and i at least were in washington in the '90s, then you go to conference committee, and they battle it out. that doesn't happen if harry reid doesn't pass things in the senate. he is the president's pocket veto. >> the step you're missing in that is -- and kevin mccarthy's interview proves that denial is not simply a river in egypt -- there's no conference committee. >> can i -- hold on. hold on. >> that's a good one. that was so fancy. >> is not just a river in egypt. >> that's what he does now. >> that's something brad pitt would say in one of those chanel ads. >> let's call brad. >> standing against the wall wearing nothing. >> he's wearing the sweater. >> go like this. >> you can't get away with saying things like that on this show. >> i want to hear his vision. >> why? more "morning joe." >> i know you're way above the cliche. i'm sorry. >> stupid cliche. >> what
case to see if they can use the public pressure, west virginia and harry reid in nevada to do things they might not otherwise want to do. i'm extremely skeptical. people have tried this in the past. no doubt the obama folks have a better organization and social media gives you advantages you didn't have in the past but they're trying to do something i have not seen signs they are willing to do in a non-presidential election. >> i do think, michael steele, the republicans will see the president talk on guns tonight and see the victims of newtown. i think that's going to cut through. we've all had these moments and said the union addresses ab had these moments and maybe there won't be an assault weapon ban and maybe won't go after thes a 99 high capacity magazines. but republicans will have a hard time saying no to background checks and saying no to gun trafficking laws. if they do say no to these items that are 9010s, we used to go around the hill saying it's 8020, 80-20 negative. if it's 80-20, that train's coming an you get out of the way. this is 90-10. my question is will republic
the day he got in the senate, he was bored. harry reid said, you don't like it here, you're bored here. why don't you run for president? >> he was considerably more politic about how he spent his short time in the senate. >> talking about barack obama's pathway he wasn't worried about that, he wasn't worried about building bridges, right? >> no, but he found a way to get along with his fellow senators as did hillary clinton who came along having greater ambitions, but careful to go step by step and not to seem bigger for her britches than she wanted to seem. >> this is an odd way to last in washington. we'll see how he does. >> lindsey graham said you get respect in the senate if you can throw a punch and you have to show you can make a deal. ted cruz has thrown lots of punches and hasn't shown he can legislate or endure. this remains to be seen. >>> and at the white house to deliver remarks on billions of dollars on automatic budget cuts set to kick in next friday. according to administration officials, the president will challenge republicans to make a quote simple choice between pro
a, quote, filibuster. it won't be a filibuster, but they're forcing harry reid to basically go and get 60 votes to confirm hagel. >> why is that? >> why are they doing it? >> why the change? why the change of heart? >> well, i think mccain has gone back and forth. i think at the beginning he suggested that he might try to block hagel's nomination. then he defended him the other day when the criticism really got out of bounds. and now he's back to saying he may try to block it. but it feels like reid will get his 60 votes. >> he's going to, but willie, they keep going back to benghazi. by the way, listen, we've said here clearly the white house screwed up, the state department screwed up, it was hillary clinton's low point. they asked for security in benghazi. they didn't get it. the ambassador asked for help. he didn't get it. what does that have to do with chuck hagel? >> well, john mccain has been trying to get answers from the white house about benghazi. i think he sees this as a moment of leverage now. he can hold this up. he's got a bunch of republican senators who will fo
senate and harry reid is in no position to point fingers at people for inaction, right? >> we ought to pass a budget and we're going to pass a budget this year. but let's also lack at the fact that there's not a single plan out there. i've been involved in every one of these bipartisan plans that hasn't said, you need about, on the minimum, about $1.2 trillion if you're going to do a new revenue, if you're going to do a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. i'm all for believing we have boot got to do more entitlement reform, but we have to do more revenues as well. and opposed to going through all of these stupid cuts, not only have we heard about 750,000 lost jobs, but in certain cases, we'll cost the taxpayers money. when we buy ten tanks, we get a volume discount. we'll break those contracts. when you do four years of cancer research, and don't get the first three years, you'll flush that. that's less meat and eggs going to the grocery store, driving up grocery prices. this was set up to be the stupidest of all options. whoever dreamed it up, who knows at this point, but at this p
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)